One Inverness Township resident wanted answers from the board of supervisors about the disagreement with the city over the 425 agreements Tuesday night.

And some of the answers came.

Earlier in the meeting, Township Attorney Tim MacArthur reported to the trustees what he found out from City Attorney Stephan Lindsay.

“City council apparently has voted and said that the only agreements the city will consider is to go back to the original 425 agreements less any provisions for revenue sharing and control over city zoning,” MacArthur said. “City council felt that the property along Townline Road should be in the Act 425 agreement. That is the official position of the city.”

After listening to the report from MacArthur, Supervisor Ron Neuman said, “Looks like we have a new...Aug. 14.” He went on to say, “We have a little time to make up our mind on what we want to do here.”

However, the issue was not dropped.

Under citizens’ comments, Trudy Lofgren, a taxpayer in Inverness Township and the city, asked about the 425 agreements.

“I am confused on this 425,” she said. “Could you explain to me why Inverness would want to change from what it was?”

Neuman paused and then said he would and then deferred to MacArthur.

“First of all the agreements technically would have expired last year,” he told Lofgren. “At the time the agreements were written, the base tax of the township was 1 mill. After those agreement were written there was a voted millage for 2 mills — for an additional mill. That obviously is an issue.”

He also said the township has not experienced “any increase with regard to that for 20 years.”

Finally, he said there is language that needs clarified.

“There were some other things the township wanted to clear up in those agreements in terms of what happens at the end of the agreements with water and sewer service and so on,” MacArthur said. “This was an attempt to sit down and discuss those items to see if something could be worked out.”

“To ask for more, that is an unrealistic expectation,” the mayor said. “(Neuman’s) attorney wrote the original document.”

Lofgren asked another question about the agreements.

“Is it not a fact that the township doesn’t incur any expenses and are just handed a check from the city because the city provides police, water, and all that kind of stuff,” she asked. “Why is the township asking for more income? Do you think you deserve a raise?”

Page 2 of 2 - Neuman responded to those questions.

“I don’t know if you have bought anything today the same price you paid 20 years ago. I challenge you to that and that is kind of my position. It has been 20 years, so lets update this agreement and make it another 20 years,” he said. “We are not asking for the world here. We started off at 1.5 for two years, then 1.75 and then the last two years 2 mills. Not really a big gain one way or the other.”

He said there were other issues in the pacts that needed addressed.

“There are other details in the agreement that cause some concern like where does the infrastructure go at the end of the agreement,” he said.

Sangster agreed that the costs of items have increased.

“The cost is not the same as it was 20 years ago. That is why we have to hold true (to the decision),” he said. “That goes true with everything. We have an aging infrastructure. The cost has gone up for that.”

Lofgren asked one final question.

“Mr. MacArthur has really had an awful lot of work to do on this, is this an extra expense to the taxpayers,” she asked. Neuman responded, “there is a fee associated with it.”

Trustee Fred Maxwell tried to assure Lofgren of the action being taken by the township.

“We are not to gouge anybody. As far as sitting back and taking a check, that check amounted to about a little over $6,000 a year. So I don’t know where they are coming up with all this,” he said. “We are taking 1 mill and the city what, assesses 18 mills, so how are we taking half it?”

As the clock ticks to an Aug. 14 deadline in which an agreement has to be signed so public hearings can be held on it, Sangster said he has received communications from parties involved.

“I being petitioned by both large landowners,” he said. At the last council meeting, it was stated that the owner of the trailer court and Wal-Mart had allegedly been in contact with the city to be annexed. Nothing can be done until after the October deadline when the extension of the old 425 agreements expire.

“We have a few details to work. I am confident at some point that we can reach an agreement but I am not going to settle this arrangement in the paper,” Neuman said. “I really wasn’t going to get into this. That is not quite the way we do business.”